Christians Do Not See Eye to Eye to what Constitutes Heresy
On December 23, 2007 Pastor Joseph Vaillancourt wrote the below denunciation of the six people involved in Ministry being investigated by Senator Charles Grassley as heretics. I personally think these Six are innocent of wrong doing legally; however I have been wrong before. I had to take some time on how to answer the Pastor. Thus directly below is the Pastor’s comment followed directly by my response.
Joseph Vaillancourt wrote:
Once a long time ago, in Europe shortly after the fall of the Roman Empire to Barbarians and Pagans. Europe was surronded by Muslims to the South and Pagans to the North. It was a drastic time, the Catholic church was a shameful organization only after money. Charlamagne (sorry if I spelled it wrong) managed to becaome king of a country which pretty much ruled all of Western Europe and included the lands of France and Germany. History now calls this empire the HOly Roman Empire manly because the Benzatines were losing a war to the Muslims...but thats besides the point.
I decided at 8 pm Sunday, to mention what the Emporer of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE DID to greedy people who made money off of the gospel. AFter all he had the first and probably the only real attempt at Christian and State union. He was a submissive Christian and accepted doctrines, forced Mulsim nation to give religious freedom to Christians in their lands. He demanded those in power not rob blind the poor. In fact, some believe he and hid kingdom are represented in the symbolic kingdom of Camelot.
Well, in his day, Priest were often charging huge amounts of money to recieve blessings, education, and the like...he out lawed that. He foreced Nuns to not sleep around and go figure, he would well with 1500s' reformation of Martin Luther. He was a student of the Word of GOd...if ever, there was a Christian king similar to King David, it was he.
We've been discussing the Grassley 6 and the implications of what is happening as of late in regards to their apparent appearance of wrong doing in their finances. I made some strong statements but in the process, I had to ask, what would have Charlamagne had done in Grassley's place.
Well, I have to admit my research on this king is limited to what can be found. I made this connection, he would have not given the Grassley 6 as much freedom to say "no" to the enquiry into their finances. He would have held them accountable. If he found wrong doing each would face considerable penalties. More importantly, he would never allow some of their teachings to continue.
truly we live in an age when it is said, that church and state ought to be seperated...ok...oh! In ancient times, this was not the case. Are we better off with having the two seperated? Yes! Because I can only find in history one time when a king was powerful enough to keep the church from using him and yet humble enough to accept correction and maintain morality as best as he could. Government can not be trusted to lead the church - (example: the Church of England - lets not open this up! I must confess I like this church but see their weakness). However, in the same way, the church can not be trusted to rule a nation, because with absolute power Satan will currupt.
So, I like a more balance of shared power, civil authoritiest govern over law making, the people daily needs, defence, enforcement of the laws. The church governs over the daily spiritual needs of people and equally keeps the governement accountable. Scritpure tells us that Government has been given a sword by authority of GOD to enflict judgement.
I am not sure how to explain this better than I have...but, regardless of who Charlamagne is and I am sure the Catholic church sees him in a rose coloured picture of seeing him the best they can. Yet, let us realize, state has a role to play in ensuring churches remain humble with finances and accountability is the rule of the day.
Just a babbling thought.
Below is my rebuttal:
Pastor, Charlemagne was a virtuous King/Emperor for his day; however he was hardly the man you are painting a portrait of. For one thing, to solidify the power of his empire he made sure the Pope (he did not ask permission) anointed him Holy Roman Emperor.
Also since the days of a solid Roman bureaucratic infrastructure had long ceased to exist; Charlemagne strengthened the principle of Feudalism. That is Charlemagne continued the development a vassal system in which nobles of lower rank paid obeisance to a higher ranking noble and onward to the top dog Charlemagne himself. At the lowest rung were the serfs who paid obeisance to their Noble Lord. People became tied to the land almost to the degree of slaves to the nobility class of Feudalism. The only recourse the peasant class had was the intervention of the Roman Church. Then as today there was corruption and there was faithfulness, the corruption did not make the whole Church corrupt. It is man that corrupts power and so there were corrupt pockets within the Church.
Monastic Orders such as Benedictines and Franciscans (to name a few) came into existence to combat the pockets of the priesthood that degenerated into carnal pleasures. These monks lived by strict rules that are doubtfully observed on a wide scale today.
Back to Charlemagne: part of the way he shored up the linkage of feudal vassalage is that he travelled his Empire extensively. He did not hang out at a Capitol city a primary amount of his time. Each lower vassal he visited it was required that they service the Royal entourage with food, blessings, etc out of the vassal’s pocket. Thus Charlemagne maintained a tight nit empire that would not survive him in expanse because later rulers were less vigorous.
Frankly if the Grassley Six’s teaching were around in Charlemagne’s day, the Emperor would have made it the law of the land because prosperity teaching reaches beyond a clerical/lay relationship. It would have encouraged a prosperity that would have enriched Charlemagne via his vassal tours keeping the Holy Roman Empire as an entity. It would have been the greedy side of the Roman Church’s day that would have tried to put a Grassley Six group out of commission because it would have threatened the Roman Church’s influence over both the peasantry and the nobility. Thus poverty became emphasized as humility.
Although I do not agree with all the teachings or maybe I should say the teachings that have led human followers rather than god followers to exchange holy prosperity for material prosperity; I regard most the “Faith” teachings of the Grassley Six to be Bible centered. That which I find disagreement with is no more heretical than a Roman Catholic believing that the Communion Elements are the actual Body and Blood of Christ or the Protestant belief that the Communion Elements are symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ.
However Pastor if indeed it is discovered that Ministers such as the Grassley Six used donated money for personal conspicuous consumption rather than the purpose of donation, then shame should be pronounced until hubris leaves and repentance turns the soul the other direction because of a contrite hearty. If a salary is commensurate with the level of work of other non-profit organizations, that salary may be used as legally and morally to fit a personal disposition. I have no problem with that and those that do are operating under jealousy.
